6 ms·
> The only difference is that it isn't marked as a fork and in this respect not shown when you look at the original repo graph. Thats the whole point. Of cours
by moondev 9y ago
> The only difference is that it isn't marked as a fork and in this respect not shown when you look at the original repo graph.
Thats the whole point. Of course you can't stop someone from pushing a repo anywhere they want. But imagine you run a website, foobar.com. You have foobar.com github org and foobar private repo. Its the canonical repo. ninja123 has a github fork of it and it relays that from the github ui. "forked from foobar/foobar.com". rockstar123 also has a "fork" but it's just code sitting out there at rockstar123/foobar.com. There is no link to the canonical repo. If you fire rockstar123 the link is severed. It just allows a way to show active, approved engagement and also to keep track of approved collaborators.
What if rockstar123 gets arrested for ICO fraud. Do you want others to see he has an official upstream link to your repo even after you have severed the relationship?
- recursive 9y agoI don't think the existence of a "github fork" shows any active approval. The default behavior for repos is to allow anyone to fork them without requesting approval.